{rfName}
Co

Indexed in

License and use

Citations

9

Altmetrics

Grant support

This work was supported by Fundacio Clinic.

Analysis of institutional authors

Sainz De La Maza Serra, Maria TeresaAuthorLlorens Bellés, VíctorAuthorSabater-Cruz, NAuthor

Share

Publications
>
Article

Comparison of two methods for obtaining and transporting corneal samples in suspected infectious keratitis

Publicated to:Journal Francais D Ophtalmologie. 43 (6): 477-483 - 2020-06-01 43(6), DOI: 10.1016/j.jfo.2019.10.010

Authors: Chang-Sotomayor, M; Belles, V Llorens; Latasiewicz, M; Torras-Sanvicens, J; Blanco-Dominguez, I; Sabater-Cruz, N; Sainz-de-la-Maza, M; Bosch-Mestres, J; Palma-Carvajal, F

Affiliations

Hosp Clin Barcelona, Microbiol Dept, ISGlobal, Carrer Villarroel 170, Barcelona 08036, Spain - Author
Inst Clin Oftalmol, Carrer Sabino Arana 1, Barcelona 08028, Spain - Author

Abstract

Background and purpose. - The purpose of this study is to compare two alternative methods of collecting and transporting media for the diagnosis of corneal ulcers, as not all clinical settings have conventional culture materials and transport media available. Methods. - In this open-Label, prospective, comparative, and randomized study, patients with clinical suspicion of infectious keratitis with high risk of loss of vision had corneal specimens collected using two methods and transport media: Eswab scraping with Amies transport medium and 23-gauge needle scraping in BACTEC Peds broth. The order of each collection method was randomized. The samples were processed by standard methods, comparing the positivity frequencies for both by parametric and nonparametric tests, according to normality criteria. Results. - Corneal infiltrates from 40 eyes of 40 patients were analyzed. Culture positivity rate was 50% for Eswab and 35% for 23-gauge needle (P= 0.258). The overall growth rate of the two methods combined was not higher than with the swab alone. The results obtained with a swab were not influenced by the collection sequence (P=0.112); however, the positivity rate was significantly higher when the sample taken with the needle was performed first (P=0.046). Conclusions. - The single sample Eswab method of collection and transportation for the diagnosis of high risk corneal ulcers is a valid alternative and can be used in cases in which, for various reasons, there is no access to the full set of traditional culture materials. (C) 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Keywords

bacteccorneal culturescorneal specimensculture mediacultures cornéennese-écouvilloneswabinfectious keratitiskératite infectieusemilieux de culture23 gauge needle scrapingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArticleBactecBacterial eye infectionBacterium isolationChemistryClinical articleCollectionComparative studyControlled studyCorneaCornea ulcerCorneal culturesCorneal specimensCorneal ulcerCulture mediaCulture mediumCultures cornéennesE-écouvillonEswabEswab scrapingEye infections, bacterialFemaleHumanHuman tissueHumansInfectious keratitisIntermethod comparisonKératite infectieuseKeratitisMaleMicrobial keratitisMicrobiologyMicroorganism detectionMiddle agedMilieux de cultureNonparametric testOpen studyParametric testPathologyPharmacologyProceduresPseudomonas aeruginosaRandomized controlled trialRisk-factorsSamplingSpecimen handlingSpécimens cornéensTherapyTissue and organ harvestingTissue cultureTissue culture techniqueTissue culture techniquesTraffic and transportTransplantationTransportationUlcersVery elderlyVisual impairmentYoung adult

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Journal Francais D Ophtalmologie, and although the journal is classified in the quartile Q4 (Agencia WoS (JCR)), its regional focus and specialization in Ophthalmology, give it significant recognition in a specific niche of scientific knowledge at an international level.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) of the Dimensions source, it yields a value of: 1.1, which indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: Dimensions Jun 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-06-26, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 4
  • Scopus: 4
  • Europe PMC: 1
  • OpenCitations: 4

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-06-26:

  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 11 (PlumX).